Re: timeout implementation issues

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: timeout implementation issues
Date: 2002-04-06 01:32:47
Message-ID: 200204060132.g361WlN05079@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Or, as I suggested above, extend the SELECT (and other querys?) syntax
> seems reasonable. More so than the non-standard 'use this index, really'
> types of extensions that other RDBMSs provide, that we've rightly avoided.

I think we need timeout for all statement.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-06 01:33:37 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2002-04-06 00:43:08 Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware